Comments by "cchris874" (@cchris874) on "VICE TV" channel.

  1. The truth is you're wrong.
    3
  2. Never before has there been controlled demolition of a skyscraper. Therefore it couldn't have happened.
    3
  3. This is what happens when you are brainwashed by 9/11 truth, Inc. You can see parts of the plane on the lawn in close up photos. Inside, there were pics of engine compressors, and landing gear. The book "Firefight" is a detailed account by recovery workers, all giving their names, attesting to aircraft parts. They are all liars, right? You won't know any of this if you only read truther sites.
    3
  4. For which there is little real evidence.
    2
  5. Many other airline pilots said it could indeed be done. I know. I asked them myself when I was a limo driver at logan for many years. So don't pretend there's anything like consensus it was impossible. Most witnesses say they saw an AA jetliner. How did the government manage to convince them they saw a was a missile? Answer: they didn't. Read the book Firefight, which documents dozens of first responders giving their own names. cheers bro
    2
  6. No one cares what silly people think.
    2
  7. Even if they saw it with their own eyes, those with twoofer vision will still insist they saw a hologram.
    2
  8.  @emperorzurg7258  Yes, he must have forgot to put that part in.
    2
  9. Yes. About as funny as the Youtube video of a ping pong ball slicing neatly through a ping pong paddle. Or the Youtube video of water cutting through aluminum. More to the point, the steel didn't have to be cut. Would you like to ask this question to a physics professor? And do you think the government chooses false physics because they know the worldwide scientific community would unravel the alleged plot in two seconds flat? Does anyone at 9/11 truth, Inc. ever ask such questions? Do they ever do anything but copy and paste from each other?
    2
  10. Governments always try to profit from convenient circumstances. That includes events they did not cause.
    2
  11. Anyone can make a claim on Youtube. Proves nothing.
    2
  12. That is so true. The truth movement, almost by definition, is not the truth.
    2
  13. Yeah, mfitz is 100% right, and most truthers also know this. So what possesses you to make a fool of both yourself and the truth mvt? Fine by me of course. As I've always maintained, government shills are as pointless as collapsing skycrapers. You guys do a great job all by yourselves destroying your own credibility.
    2
  14. We know pretty well what happened. Most people figured it out on day one.
    2
  15. Mike is right, it was found before the collapse. Even so, paper items surviving even fiery plane crashes is nothing new.
    2
  16. Yes, that about sums up the truth movement.
    2
  17. No proof, sorry you lose.
    2
  18. The evidence of a 757 hitting the Pentagon is massive and beyond doubt. You're the one that's been brainwashed. By carefully protecting yourself from critical feedback by reading only truther sites. When you isolate yourself from all the other sources, you lose touch with reality. I recommend the book Firefight, which is massive documentation of the 1st responders accounts of the plane crash at the Pentagon. Don't come back with the government hired hundreds of fake responders and firefighters. No one will believe you. cheers
    2
  19. It wasn't. Kindly do better research.
    1
  20. Inside your imagination.
    1
  21. Only if you confine yourself to truther sites and block out all other sources.
    1
  22.  @mehere8-32  Sorry I'm not fluent in internet code.
    1
  23.  @Robert_D_Mercer  Yes, the truth matters to me.
    1
  24. Multiple choice quiz: Why was it necessary to blow up some grass in the middle of nowhere? 1) Because without some heroes, the War on Terror would have been impossible. 2) Because without dead grass the War on Terror would have been impossible. 3) Because without 40 additional dead people the War on Terror would have been impossible. 4) Because the idea is monumentally stupid.
    1
  25. I can refute that in 2 seconds. Do you think that after 4 planes evaded air security, crashing into 3 buildings and killing hundreds, and seeing the sight of the twin towers, and the people jumping.....that the government would have sat idly by and done nothing? Seriously.
    1
  26. Let the men handle air crash investigations. The truther boys are still struggling with the alphabet.
    1
  27. @@politelyvulgarvernacular You're also desperately seeking attention. That's OK. We all do it sometimes.
    1
  28. @@politelyvulgarvernacular I just love people with 2nd rate senses of humor. They remind me of 2nd rate intellects.....i.e. truthers. An opportunity for me to shine. "Hate messages" Sometimes the truth hurts.
    1
  29. Not sure why you think you qualify as a comedian. You have no talent in that department.
    1
  30.  @Robert_D_Mercer  Well at least I did something right. :)
    1
  31.  @Robert_D_Mercer  Well, ask commercial pilots yourself. They should be more qualified to speak than you or me.
    1
  32. @@adamkennedy6284 Yes I know. I'm a paid shill too because, as we all know, the government desperately needs to pay us to do what truthers already do so well on their own: look as stupid as possible.😵‍💫
    1
  33.  @LuckyPoop  The only problem is, you have no proof.
    1
  34.  @LuckyPoop  I believe remote control tech exists, and may well be on today's gen jets. but no real proof it can't be overridden by pilots. What makes you so certain? What would be the point? Name a scenario where it has a high chance of ever being used on a commercial flight. Sure didn't work on 9/11.
    1
  35. Amen to you, but this forum is about 911, not the place for religious sermons. Thank you for your understanding.
    1
  36. @@politelyvulgarvernacular Trying desperately to assert your superiority. No one is falling for it except you.
    1
  37. That just about sums up the truth movement. Not even the government can mach it, not only for its dishonesty, but for its passion for distortion, reckless scholarship and shockingly poor judgement.
    1
  38. @@politelyvulgarvernacular Not that it bothers me, but your attempts to be funny aren't even funny. Let pro comics like me do the heavy lifting.
    1
  39. @@politelyvulgarvernacular And now ma friend, ah have things to do. So have a delahtful evening.
    1
  40. Do you honestly think the government had anything to gain by crashing a plane into an empty field? Do you ever ask yourself these basic questions? Did the "War on Terror" depend on targeting grass? Seriously.
    1
  41. The Truth movement peddles theirs, so why not?
    1
  42.  @nadimnaouach5839  Sorry to say, paper items surviving violent plane crashes is nothing new or unusual.
    1
  43.  @lilymiller3522  I hate to break it to you, but paper and cloth items surviving even violent plane crashes is neither new nor surprising. It is a common place.
    1
  44. That's the lie propagated by people who lack rigorous minds, who don't understand the nature of evidence, have shockingly poor research skills, and have little common sense. The truth mvt has all of the classic traits of Grand CTs: they don't publish in science journals. They are not experts, they can't do basic research (the lie that "cell phones can't work above 8k ft". They are more interested in collecting signatures (witness A&E for Truth) and cannot acknowledge their huge errors (witness pilotsfortruth refuted F77 fdr analysis.) In short, telemarketing and tabloid journalism. If you can't tell the difference, then you aren't a real truth teller.
    1
  45. I did climate change.
    1
  46.  @624Eduardo  Based on what?
    1
  47. The people who do twoofism have tiny brains.
    1
  48. Not as dumb as you think they are.
    1
  49.  @h1F595  Welcome to 911 truth, one of the most shocking collection of lies, fraud, crackpot scholarship and mentally disordered judgement in the business.
    1
  50. Absolutely, especially 911 truth sites. They are down the with the dregs, like the National Enquirer.
    1
  51. " 'The buildings were 'pulled', a term used to signify demolition." You have no credibility. It's been painstakingly explained by demo experts that "pull it" does not mean explosive demolition in demo jargon. Do you just like to make up stuff that sounds good?
    1
  52. To any sensible person, your comments translate to mental disorder.
    1
  53. OK, so how is this any different than vigorous debates about the economy, presidential elections, feminism, abortion, BLM, AI or gun control? By your logic, if anyone challenges what you believe, he is by default, a government shill. Did I get that right?
    1
  54. "It would be another story if we saw an ACTUAL AIRPLANE." There was "no plane" in the wreckage of PSA flight 1771. Was it a fake too?
    1
  55. But, Operation Northwoods never happened. Neither did Operation 911.
    1
  56. Yeah, they almost rival the truth mvt.
    1
  57. The problem is, not much evidence.
    1
  58.  @h1F595  Evidence is a distant 3rd or 4th in the truther's priority of reasoning. Everything they don't like they just declare it fake, without a shred of evidence to back it up. Just watch bane2429 proceed to do just that.
    1
  59.  @Rose187-p4f  For a long time the government's position is that the pax did not make it into the cockpit. Strange heroes, they.
    1
  60. What real evidence do you have it was shot down? Remember, the government already admitted they did give a shoot down order, but it came too late. The only evidence I ever hear is the two debris fields found farther away, which upon analysis don't hold up to scrutiny; and the unproven conviction the government had more than enough time to act earlier. Given all the chaos and uncertainty of that morning, that argument is virtually impossible to prove.
    1
  61.  @bargeman100  Keep up the good work, bot. !!!
    1
  62.  @MFitz12  Exactly. Their arguments are self-refuting.
    1
  63.  @jrsergii1  Please google "Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 and 9/11's United Flight 93." This is Mick West's site. Flight 302, before excavations began, looked startlingly similar to F93 crater. It's more confirmation that under extreme speeds and angles a plane can indeed bury itself. Another similar case is Northwest flight 710 - the fuselage entirely disappeared under its crater. It was something veteran investigators had never seen before: "there were no bodies."
    1
  64. For what purpose?
    1
  65. It's possible, but no evidence of any substance.
    1
  66. @Howard Finkel Oh that's way too generous. How about: I have no critical thinking skills, do not speak without official authorization from the Department of 911 Truth, and know nothing about high speed plane crashes.
    1
  67. No, wrong. You didn't do your research. You also have to explain flight 93 was even needed. Good luck trying to come up with a credible answer. It only makes sense as a foiled terrorist attack.
    1
  68.  sergemarcotte4597  Either way, flight 93 has virtually no relevance to the big picture. Are you of the belief that without flight 93, the "war on terror" would have been impossible?
    1
  69.  sergemarcotte4597  "The original comment was not about war on terror but about flight 93." Rather than quibble over the appropriate guidelines for the strict adherence to the subject of an original post, let's do something more interesting: Do you have a logical, cogent and sensible theory why an alleged Grand Conspiracy (let us not quibble over the terminology) by the US government, allegedly to justify a "War on Terror" and the invasion of Iraq (among other things) would even need to incorporate flight 93? That question needs to be answered before one can have a sensible discussion of the evidence.
    1
  70.  sergemarcotte4597  "You don't have an argument about anything concerning what happened that day." Yikes. Do truthers just love to lie by nature? I have made many points both here and in past threads about flight 93. I've talked about the big picture, as I did in my question to you. You damn and dismiss it. I have discussed the wreckage question, the parallels w flight 302, the cell phone lies that the truth mvt keeps spreading. By contrast you have discussed nothing as far as I have seen. If you'll kindly note, I never personally insulted anyone despite what you said. You cast the first stone above. That shows who is really serious. You want to focus on your feelings. I am sure you are a fine individual, but my main focus is the facts. cheers
    1
  71.  sergemarcotte4597  Your passive aggressive comments do add a touch of spice to the conversation.
    1
  72.  r.a.i.s.e.realizeamericais835  Not meant as an insult. BTW I find it continually frustrating that no one does their homework before they say "cell phones impossible" or "no wreckage," and "pilot consensus." Whether there was a massive false flag, OK I can't say 100% for sure. But I see the invasion of these comments taking over whole discussions not even related to 911. It's like constant spam, and it's like super annoying. cheers
    1
  73.  @Gally80  Plane parts were found. Don't you believe in doing research before you speak?
    1
  74.  @Gally80  Has it occurred to you the reason you have fallen for trutherism is you are inept at doing basic research? The wreckage pictures, including pics of the black boxes, the quote from the county coroner on body fragments, the contents of the FDR which was published and has been online for decades - it's all there if you lift a finger rather than have others do your research for you. cheers
    1
  75. While on the subject of stupidity, we could start with the belief that governments try to violate basic physics as hard as they can. And decide to increase the speed of a collapse to make it look as fake as possible. And that the worldwide community of scientists and structural engineers, minus that small % of twoofers, were too stupid to notice. No comparison.
    1
  76. "Total nonsense." A concise summary of your post.
    1
  77.  sergemarcotte4597  All of them? After all the time and thought that went into them? That's hitting way below the best. Very very hurtful.
    1
  78. I was behind Maui.
    1
  79. We already have overwhelming proof. The question is, why do you fall for the tabloid telemarketing gimmicks of the truth mvt? Anyone with an ounce of sense instantly recognizes the iconic hallmarks of Grand CTism: no peer review, self published, shockingly poor scholarship, more interested in getting signatures than writing science articles (Richard Gage), philosophers and religious professors posing as scientists, -- you name it, it's all here. Flight 93 is the crowning absurdity of all this.
    1
  80. It just shows how unprepared the government was and how some people cannot imagine the government being incompetent, despite the evidence on an almost daily basis.
    1
  81. No proof, keep twoofin.
    1
  82. So you would have us believe the government chose to embrace false physics so that any 9th grader could unravel the plot in 2 seconds. Even the government is not as stupid as you.
    1
  83. No proof. Which is probably why you believe it.
    1
  84. "they melted the steels with termite devices" I never knew termites also feed on steel.
    1
  85. This is incoherent. Who people, which people, what people?
    1
  86. Is this forum representative of what Americans have become? Unable to compute basic reality? Unable to process the massive evidence that proves 911 was the work of terrorists?
    1
  87.  @dirkdiggler8260  You mean no sense?
    1
  88. Whatever lies can be ascribed to 9/11, it's tiny compared to the massive crock of sh-t that constitutes the truth mvt. They would have us believe that without crashing a plane into an empty field in rural Pennsylvania, the War on Terror would have been impossible. Seriously, you can't comprehend how utterly insane that reasoning is?
    1
  89. Plenty of sensible people have looked into it and conclude the truth mvt is a scholarly joke.. They have no sense of the big picture, they can't connect dots. Thus we have the absurd spectacle of controlled demolition. Do you honestly think that the government, after 3 airplane strikes, would have just sat idly by and done nothing to retaliate without the collapses? The event was unprecedented from 9:02 onwards, and by 9:37 America was deeply united in the conviction we were at war with terrorists. And to boot, alleging they decided it would be a great idea to choose junk physics to make their case, and to knowingly make the collapse times impossibly fast. Do you realize how utterly absurd that sounds?
    1
  90. Why would they shoot the plane down rather than let it proceed to destination where it would do far more destruction? This again illustrates the schizophrenic nature of 911 twoof. Oh let me guess, a lone fighter made the decision to take it down.
    1
  91. Another mindless claim devoid of any proof. These are the type truthers love best.
    1
  92.  @Bdhdheksnsb  The government has no need for shills. The truthers' own absurd words are far more effective. No alleged shill can match their absurd musings. Example: your own brain dead post. The idea of paid shills 22 years after the fact on a forum with a trickle of visitors is itself wacky. Keep up the good work. The more you guys post, the deader the truth mvt becomes.
    1
  93. It's just a theory.
    1
  94.  @bargeman100  But I'm a smart troll, whereas you are a bot. Big difference
    1
  95.  @bargeman100  Keep on making the truth movement look as stupid as everyone already knows. Just keep saying troll. I could hardly do a better job myself.
    1
  96.  @bargeman100  I bet you still think I'm a paid troll for the Union Army. Because you'll believe anything.
    1
  97.  @bargeman100  On the other hand, you probably don't even know what the Union Army was. Since you only have a one word vocabulary. Just sayin.
    1
  98.  @bargeman100  It's also obvious you're the real troll. Paid to make the truth movement look as utterly stupid as possible. And in that, you succeed with each fresh post.
    1
  99.  @bargeman100  Oh, my bad. You have a 2 word vocabulary.
    1
  100.  @bargeman100  Once a bot, always a bot.
    1
  101. If they let a terrorist attack happen, then by definition it was a terrorist attack. Did I miss something?
    1
  102.  @Larry26-f1w  Not literally.
    1
  103.  @sinekonata  LOL, you think I'm that naive? Of course he's a 9/11 skeptic. The vaporization is an unscientific reference to controlled demolition, as if a collapsing building would not emit a huge quantity of dust. The towers were 90% or more air by volume. The amount of the building turning to dust is impossible to estimate because we cannot SEE through it (this glaringly obvious failure is alone shocking for any alleged serious researcher.) The debris pile was several stories high above ground level. Thus any reference to "vaporization" of the whole building is absurd and totally lacking in the spirit of genuine scientific inquiry. What else is new with the truth movement, with its improbable or even bizarre theorizing. The need to demolish buildings to begin with is one example. Saying we needed some heroes to cheer us up is not far from mentally disordered. The failure to acknowledge that building 7 was fully engulfed, or that claiming cell phones from planes were impossible, or the creation of a blatantly fake peer review site, are other hallmarks of their grossly inadequate research skills, and shockingly poor judgement. This approach to reality is what one expects from the National Enquirer, not a serious truth seeking endeavor. No wonder they are largely confined to YoutTube.
    1